Electoral Commission: Finance

Andrew Tyrie: To ask the honourable Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what budget has been set for the Electoral Commission for each of the next three financial years. [Official Report, 6 March 2008, Vol. 472, c. 26MC.]

Peter Viggers: The Speaker's Committee considered the Commission's budget for the four years 2007-08 to 2010-11 when it met in March 2007 and approved a cash flat resource budget of £3,995,000 (including the £2 million annual policy development grant budget) in each of the four years, subject to reconsideration only in the event that Parliament places new responsibilities upon the Commission during this period.

Departmental Official Residences

Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Ministerial residences were available to his Department's Ministers and those of its predecessors in each of the last 10 years.

Jonathan R Shaw: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Watson) on 19 February 2008,  Official  Report, column 688W.

Public Sector: Procurement

James Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of publicly procured food was of British origin in  (a) 2005,  (b) 2006 and  (c) 2007.

Jonathan R Shaw: There are no central records for the years 2005 and 2006 giving the proportion of publicly procured food of British origin. We have however published data giving the proportion of domestically produced food used by Government Departments and also supplied to hospitals and prisons under contracts negotiated by NHS Supply Chain and HM Prison Service for the period July 2006 to 30 June 2007. The report is available on the PSFPI web site at:
	http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/procurement/pdf/govt-food-usage.pdf
	and has been placed in the library of the House.

Humanitarian Aid

Jeremy Hunt: To ask the Minister for the Olympics how much was spent on domestic humanitarian assistance in each of the last three years, broken down by source budget.

Tessa Jowell: holding answer 20 February 2008
	In my answer of 26 February 2008,  Official Report, column 136W, to the right hon. Member I set out the budget for the Humanitarian Assistance Unit in each of the last three years. It is not possible to split this budget up in terms of support for domestic incidents and support for international incidents.
	The funding for the Humanitarian Assistance Unit all comes from the budget allocated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Afghanistan

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with President Karzai on the appointment of a UN Secretary General Special Representative in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Murphy: holding answer 26 February 2008
	The appointment of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General to Afghanistan is primarily a matter for the UN Secretary-General.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter with President Karzai during his visit to Afghanistan with US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on 8 February 2008. On 25 January 2008, in the margins of the World Economic Forum at Davos, the matter was also discussed at a meeting between President Karzai, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the House in his statement onAfghanistan on 12 December 2007,  Official Report, column 307,
	"Britain continues to push for the next step in this process: the appointment of a strong, UN envoy to bring greater coherence across the international effort in security, governance and development—and in relations with the Afghan government."

FCO Services

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to take if the FCO Services Trading Fund does not attract sufficient third party income.

Meg Munn: Income from third parties is a relatively small proportion of Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Services business. It is considered unlikely that FCO Services will not attract sufficient third party income; however, if projected growth is not achieved FCO Services, has well conceived contingency plans for cost reduction and can scale down investment plans if necessary to meet down turns in third party opportunities.

FCO Services: Data Protection

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has put in place to ensure that personal data held by the FCO Services Trading Fund is kept securely.

Meg Munn: Data security in Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Services receives the closest attention and care. The FCO and FCO Services have implemented the latest Cabinet Office guidance on storing personal data. FCO Services makes a unique selling point of its secure services, so security is at the heart of everything it does.
	The organisation holds and processes personal data for a number of reasons and strong measures are in place to protect all data. Systems are only deployed after Government security accreditation has been completed.
	Security measures and accreditation include, but are not limited to, the following:
	All sensitive data is held in secure conditions.
	Systems are managed according to Government protective data marking.
	Data transmission is minimised to essential levels and takes place across encrypted and protected networks.
	In limited circumstances, data is transported by disk, but only when passwords or data encryption techniques are applied. Carriage is consistent with FCO policy.
	Legitimate access to systems is restricted to authorised users by electronic and physical assurance processes.
	Audit processes are in place to oversee the effectiveness of the information security policy and data access is monitored by an independent security function.
	Laptops and hand held devices used for confidential data are installed with especially accredited and encrypted disks and secure communications facilities. Other laptops with unencrypted discs are used only for less sensitive material.

Iran: Capital Punishment

Andrew MacKinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government has made to the government of Iran in respect of human rights arising from specific instance of capital punishment carried out in Iran in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Kim Howells: The Government remain deeply concerned by the increasing use of capital punishment in Iran. We regularly make representations to the Government of Iran, in our bilateral contacts and through the EU, to express general concern about the use of the death penalty in Iran and to raise individual execution cases. In 2007, the EU presidency did this on more than 20 occasions in both meetings and public statements. The EU has issued two further declarations on the death penalty in Iran already this year. We also discuss human rights issues bilaterally with Iranian officials in London and Tehran. In the last 12 months we have raised serious concerns about the use of death penalty on seven separate occasions. This has included specific instances when capital punishment has been carried out in Iran, for example the executions of Mohammad Moussavi, Jafar Kiani, Makwan Moloudzadeh and Mohammad Reza Tork.

Pakistan: Elections

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 
	(1)  whether he has received representations on the number of candidates from religious minorities in the elections in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  whether he has had discussions with the Pakistani government on the political representation of minorities in Pakistan.

Kim Howells: holding answer 26 February 2008
	In our regular contact with the Government of Pakistan at ministerial and official level, bilaterally and through the EU, we have stressed the need for free and fair elections. The elections, which took place on 18 February, were an opportunity for the people of Pakistan to exercise their democratic voice and participate folly in the process of electing their new government. We welcome the EU electoral observer mission (EOM) report, released on 20 February, which assessed that the elections were competitive, despite the well-documented procedural problems.
	We will want to work with the new government to help build the institutional framework necessary for a sustained democratic transition and ensure that the fundamental rights of all Pakistani citizens particularly the most vulnerable (women, minorities and children) are guaranteed as laid down in the Constitution of Pakistan and in accordance with international human rights standards. An important part of this will be addressing the weaknesses in the electoral system identified in the EU EOM's report.
	Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials recently met with representatives from the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement, a non-governmental organisation working on behalf of Christians in Pakistan, as part of our ongoing engagement with stakeholder communities. Officials remain in regular contact with them on minority religious rights issues.

Electronic Equipment: Waste Management

Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform whether the UK has fully implemented the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) directive; and what steps he is taking to ensure the continuing compliance with WEEE obligations.

Malcolm Wicks: holding answer 25 February 2008
	The waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) directive was transposed into UK law on 12 December 2006. The transposition into UK law centred on the requirement to establish a system of collective responsibility for the collection treatment reprocessing and environmentally sound disposal of historical WEEE—that is electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) placed on the UK market before 13 August 2005
	Further consideration will be given to the transposition of article 8.2 of the directive, which requires the introduction of individual producer responsibility (IPR) for all EEE placed on the market after the 13 August 2005. This will include discussion with the Commission and other member states on the precise requirement of this article and the practical consideration for the introduction of an effective and cost-efficient system.
	The Government have established the WEEE Advisory Body (WAB), an independent non-governmental public body to provide advice on the issues arising from the implementation and operation of the UK WEEE system. One area for consideration will be recommendations by the WAB on how the UK can move to a system of IPR.
	The Department will be monitoring compliance of the WEEE regulations and working with enforcement authorities who will be undertaking activities to raise awareness within the producer and retail sectors to ensure those affected by the WEEE regulations are aware of their requirements.

Capita

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was paid by his Department to Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries in each financial year since 2004-05; which contracts were awarded by his Department to Capita Group plc in each year to the most recent available date; what the cost was of each contract; what penalties for default were imposed on contract provisions; what the length was of each contract; whether the contract was advertised; how many companies applied for the contract; how many were short-listed; what criteria were used for choosing a company; what provision was made for renewal without re-tender in each case; and if he will make a statement.

Anne McGuire: Information on DWP expenditure with Capita Group plc and its known subsidiaries in each year since 2004-05 is provided in the following table.
	
		
			   £ million 
			 2004-05 47.79 
			 2005-06 53.10 
			 2006-07 54.80 
			 2007-08 (to December 2007) 20.97 
			 Total = £176.66 million which includes £23.79 million recoverable VAT. 
		
	
	Contracts awarded to Capita are as follows:
	 Record storage
	In 2004, DWP awarded a contract for the provision of record storage services to Capita Business Services Ltd. The contract commenced on 1 July 2004 and is due to expire in June 2011. The contract was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). 39 organisations applied for the contract and three were shortlisted. Expenditure on this contract between July 2004 to December 2007 is £52.96 million.
	 Occupational  h ealth  s ervices
	In December 2007, Capita Health Solutions was successful in a competitive re- tender exercise to identify an occupational health service provider for DWP. The competition was advertised in OJEU and a number of organisations expressed interest in the contract, eight were shortlisted and four bids were received. This service went live in April 2007. DWP and Capita mutually agreed to disengage from this arrangement with effect from 15 August 2007. Expenditure with Capita was £1.07 million.  Consultancy and Interim Personnel
	Capita Business Services Ltd. has a place within four lots on the DWP Consultancy and Interim Personnel framework. This framework was advertised through OJEU and went live in April 2004. Each requirement identified within the Department is competed within the appropriate lot of the framework or through other appropriate commercial arrangements e.g. PAN Government frameworks, CIPHER Communications Framework. Expenditure with Capita on consultancy and interim personnel from April 2004 to December 2007 is £5.63 million.
	 The UNderpinning IT DeliverY (UNITY) Project
	In 2005, Capita Business Services Ltd. was one of 32 suppliers awarded a Framework Agreement under the Department's UNderpinning IT DeliverY (UNITY) project. The UNITY Project was designed to put in place commercial arrangements for the procurement of IS/IT services for DWP which complemented existing contracts. As a result of a formal competition, the UNITY suppliers were selected to compete for business within specific areas or lots. Capita Business Services Ltd. is eligible to compete for business in lot one (application development) and lot two (infrastructure development), if invited to do so by DWP. The procurement was conducted under public procurement regulations with a Contract Award Notice published in the OJEU on 31 May 2005.
	Capita Business Services Ltd. is one of 23 suppliers that met those criteria in lot one and one of 12 suppliers successful in lot two. The Framework Agreement itself has no value attached to it, nor is there any guarantee that suppliers will be invited to compete for, or be awarded, any specific business for the four year duration of the Framework, which expires in 2009. To date no contract within the Framework Agreement has been awarded to Capita.
	 Other  s pend with Capita
	Capita Business Solutions had a contract with DWP until March 2007 for the provision of office services in the north west, north east, Yorkshire and East and West Midlands. Expenditure from April 2004 to March 2007 was £85.38 million. Capita had a contract also for the delivery of winter fuel payments which ended in May 2005, following a re-competition. Expenditure from April 2004 to the end of the contract was £4.84 million.
	DWP can access Cabinet Office contracts for the delivery of PCSPS payments (Capita) and their framework for senior level recruitment where Veredus (a Capita subsidiary) is a supplier. In addition, there has been ad-hoc expenditure with Capita for example for the provision of miscellaneous training, IS/IT, property services and access to work payments, to aid in the employment of disabled workers. Expenditure from April 2004 to December 2007 in these areas is £2.99 million.
	All DWP contracts are awarded on a balance of quality and cost, to provide optimum value for money for the Department. All contracts are underpinned by key performance indicators and where appropriate, service credit regimes should performance not reach the required standard. DWP also has standard clauses in respect of formal breach of contract action.

Housing Benefit: Newcastle Upon Tyne

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of housing benefit there were in  (a) local authority,  (b) housing association and  (c) private rented tenure sectors in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne in each of the last five years; how many new customers there were in each tenure sector in each year; and what the average processing time was for new customers in each sector in each year.

James Plaskitt: The available information is in the following tables.
	
		
			  Number of housing benefit (HB) recipients in Newcastle upon Tyne local authority in last five years 
			   Local authority HB recipients  Housing association HB recipients  Private rented sector HB recipients 
			  As at May:
			 2003 20,600 4,300 4,700 
			 2004 20,600 4,400 4,700 
			 2005 20,300 4,400 4,400 
			 2006 19,600 4,600 3,900 
			 2007 19,300 5,000 3,600 
			  Notes:  1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.  3. Housing benefit figures exclude any extended payment cases.  4. Private tenants include all private rented tenure sectors excluding housing association.   Source:  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in May 2003-07. 
		
	
	
		
			  Number of new housing benefit (HB) customers in each tenure in Newcastle upon Tyne in last five years 
			   Local authority new claims  Local authority average processing times (days)  Registered social landlord new claims  Registered social landlord average processing times (days)  Private rented sector new claims  Private rented sector average processing times (days) 
			 2002-03 8,700 53 1,700 58 5,100 59 
			 2003-04 9,200 51 1,800 51 5,200 58 
			 2004-05 7,200 57 1,400 50 4,200 58 
			 2005-06 4,200 57 980 53 2,500 72 
			 2006-07 5,500 62 2,000 59 3,300 82 
			 2007-08(1) 2,500 39 1,000 33 1,500 55 
			 (1 )Quarter 1 to Quarter 2.   Notes:  1. Data limitations mean we are unable to establish the number of new customers each year. We have answered the question using figures for new claim. This will be close to the number of new customers, but will include customers who are re-claiming and therefore not new.  2. Data limitations mean we are unable to split housing association properties from the registered social landlord definition. However, the vast majority of HA properties are RSL properties.  3. New claims have been rounded to the nearest hundred.  4. Processing times have been rounded to the nearest day.   Source:  Housing Benefit Operational Database, 2007-08 data.

National Lottery: Northern Ireland

Mark Durkan: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding was granted by the National Lottery  (a) to schemes in Northern Ireland and  (b) per head of the population in Northern Ireland in each financial year since 1997.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The number and value of grants awarded by the Lottery Distributing Bodies in each financial year since 1997, in Northern Ireland is given in the following table. The figures are derived from the DCMS lottery grants database. The population figure used throughout is 1,741,600, which is the mid-2006 estimate of the Office for National Statistics.
	
		
			  Financial year  Number of Grants  Total value of grants (£)  Per capita value (£) 
			 2007 (to date) 498 37,518,712 21.54 
			 2006-07 1,501 43,297,488 24.86 
			 2005-06 1,905 73,717,565 42.33 
			 2004-05 1,479 50,417,962 28.95 
			 2003-04 1,177 48,468,452 27.83 
			 2002-03 1,635 74,139,886 42.57 
			 2001-02 1,356 57,949,621 33.27 
			 2000-01 948 45,372,133 26.05 
			 1999-2000 972 67,638,796 38.84 
			 1998-99 692 60,909,678 34.97 
			 1997-98 630 95,550,031 54.86 
			 Total 12,793 654,980,324 — 
		
	
	The Department's lottery grants database is searchable at:
	www.lottery.culture.gov.uk
	and uses information supplied by the lottery distributors.

Identity Cards

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the Identity Cards Scheme Cost report published in November 2007, if she will provide a break down by main budget heading of the £38 million in set-up costs for providing identity cards to foreign nationals from October 2007 and October 2017.

Jacqui Smith: The set up cost estimates for providing identity card to foreign nationals cannot be broken down further until we conclude commercial processes.
	As with all cost estimates covering a 10-year period the estimates contained in the Identity Cards Cost Report November 2007 are subject to change in light of new information or assumptions.

Identity Cards

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the identity cards scheme cost report published in November 2007, if she will provide a break down by main budget heading of the £144 million in operational costs for providing identity cards to foreign nationals from October 2007 and October 2017.

Jacqui Smith: The operational cost estimates for providing identity card to foreign nationals cannot be broken down further until we conclude commercial processes.
	As with all cost estimates covering a ten year period the estimates contained in the identity cards cost report November 2007 are subject to change in light of new information or assumptions.

Housing: Disadvantaged

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent steps the Government have taken to encourage housing associations to meet the needs of vulnerable tenants.

Iain Wright: The Housing Corporation's Regulatory Code expects registered social landlords to provide vulnerable and marginalised residents with appropriate responsive housing services. They should also ensure that support and care arrangements (including liaison with other agencies) are in place, where appropriate.
	The Corporation's strategic approach is set out in their 'Housing for Vulnerable People: Strategy Statement'. As a result the Government, through the Corporation's affordable housing programme, has allocated £385 million during 2006-08 for housing for vulnerable people, almost doubling the investment during the previous two years.
	In July 2007, the Housing Corporation produced the follow-up publication 'Investing in Independence: Housing for Vulnerable People Strategy'. This sets out how the Housing Corporation will engage with housing providers and support them in responding to the needs of vulnerable people, working in partnership with local and central government.
	The Corporation is currently assessing bids for their 2008-11 affordable housing programme. They have set out in their prospectus for the programme that they expect to fund more supported housing than they did in the 2006-08 programme.

Housing: Teachers

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many teachers have purchased houses through the Low Cost Home Ownership Scheme in each year for which data is available.

Iain Wright: The following table shows the number of teachers who have purchased homes through the Low Cost Home Ownership Scheme in each year as follows:
	
		
			   Number 
			 2001 57 
			 2002 1,221 
			 2003 1,890 
			 2004 959 
			 2005 2,572 
			 2006 1,741 
			 2007 (1) 984 
			 (1)As at January 2008

Minister for the South West

Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on how many occasions the Minister for the South West has met representatives of the South West Regional Development Agency since her appointment in June 2007.

Parmjit Dhanda: The Minister for the South West has met members or officials from the South West Regional Development Agency on seven occasions.

Regional Government: Ministers

Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 8 January 2008,  Official Report, column 372W, on regional government: ministers, how many times Regional Ministers have met to discuss their work since appointment.

Parmjit Dhanda: The network of Regional Ministers has met three times since being established in July 2007 and it is intended that it will continue to meet every two months. The network of Regional Ministers operates under the joint chairmanship of the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government, and Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, with officials from these departments providing a secretariat.

Regional Government: Ministers

Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 8 January 2008,  Official Report, column 372W, on regional government: ministers, how many officials from her Department work in the secretariat for the network of Regional Ministers.

Parmjit Dhanda: There is presently the equivalent of one full time member of staff working in the secretariat for the network of Regional Ministers.

Regional Government: Ministers

Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 21 January 2008,  Official Report, column 1533W, on regional government: ministers, on how many occasions the Minister for the South West has visited each of the South West constituencies referred to in the answer.

Parmjit Dhanda: The Minister for the South West has visited each listed constituency once except for Bournemouth, East, Bournemouth, West and Taunton where he has been twice and Exeter four times as Regional Minister.

Developing Countries: Clinical Trials

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 
	(1)  what discussions he has had with  (a) governments of developing countries and  (b) international organisations on cases where UK-based pharmaceutical companies clinical trials on medicinal products in developing countries have caused death, injury or blindness; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  if his Department will provide support to people in developing countries who have been adversely affected, or have had close relatives killed, in pharmaceutical trials of medicinal products of UK-based pharmaceutical companies.

Gillian Merron: The UK Government regulates clinical trials run by the pharmaceutical industry through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. DFID has had no reason to have discussions with developing countries governments or international organisations about cases where clinical trials run by UK-based pharmaceutical companies have caused death, injury or blindness.
	All clinical trials that receive DFID funding are run according to good clinical practice and are also listed on the international clinical trials register. To protect people taking part in clinical trials funded by DFID, each trial has its own Independent Data Monitoring Committee, which looks at the data collected as the trial progresses, and a separate independent Trial Steering Committee (which oversees and monitors the trial). These committees have the power to stop the trial at any time and at the earliest indication of harm.
	Clinical trials run by pharmaceutical companies have insurance, to make provision for anyone harmed in research, and no-fault compensation schemes. DFID is not involved in any UK-based pharmaceutical company trials and therefore can not make provision for anyone claiming to have been harmed by participation.

Overseas Aid: Health

Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in the development of international health partnership compacts between international development partners and the governments of  (a) Burundi,  (b) Cambodia,  (c) Ethiopia,  (d) Kenya,  (e) Mozambique,  (f) Nepal,  (g) Zambia and  (h) Mali; whether he has identified inadequate funding as a hindrance in the development of any such compact; and what arrangements his Department has in place to overcome any such hindrance.

Gillian Merron: The international health agencies, under the leadership of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Bank, are now implementing the International Health Partnership (IHP). At the country-level, the governments are working with these agencies and other donors to develop country compacts. We do not have specific information on the progress in each of the IHP countries. There will be a meeting in Lusaka, Zambia this month to review progress in individual countries. Early indications are positive. WHO expects the first set of compacts to be ready by September 2008.
	The health agencies have identified a budget of £7 million over, two years in order to implement the IHP. To date £4 million has already been provided, with the UK funding £3.5 million and Norway £0.5 million. The WHO and the World Bank are approaching other countries to provide the balance of costs in year two of this work. Part of these funds are earmarked to offset the costs involved in developing country compacts.

Higher Education: Admissions

Stephen Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills what proportion of those who gained A-levels enrolled on a degree course at a higher education institution in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: Administrative data sources do not currently allow us to calculate the proportion of those who gained A Levels and enrolled on a degree course at higher education.
	Some rates of entry to higher education by prior qualification are available from the Youth Cohort Study (YCS). The latest available figures are based on 19-year-olds in
	2006-07:
	82 per cent. of those with academic Level 3 qualifications at age 18 are in HE by age 19.
	47 per cent. of those with vocational Level 3 qualifications at age 18 are in HE by age 19.
	Although the YCS cannot reliably be used to make comparisons over time, the data do suggest that conversion rates from A level to HE have been reasonably constant
	at above 80 per cent.

Higher Education: Admissions

Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills what proportion of students applied for a university place on completion of their A-levels in  (a) Cornwall,  (b) the South West and  (c) England in each year since 1979.

Bill Rammell: Administrative data sources do not currently allow us to calculate the proportion of those who gained A-levels who applied for a university place, nor is application information for 18-year-olds available by smaller areas.
	The latest available information on all 18-year-old applicants is given in Table 1.
	
		
			  Table 1: Number of English domiciled 18-year-old applicants to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK 
			  Year of entry  Applicants 
			 2000 151,060 
			 2001 156,240 
			 2002 157,585 
			 2003 161,480 
			 2004 160,450 
			 2005 175,405 
			 2006 173,805 
			 2007 176,305 
			  Note:  Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.   Source: Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). 
		
	
	Figures are not available for earlier years than 2000. Also, figures for Cornwall and South West are not available, only for England as a whole. It is not possible to separate applicants who have completed A-levels as opposed to other qualifications. Therefore figures for all English domiciled 18-year-old university applicants have been provided. Latest figures for 2008 entry show that, as at 15 January, 18-year-old applicants from England were up by 5 per cent.
	The main measure for tracking progress on increasing participation in higher education is currently the Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR). This is the sum of the HE initial participation rates for individual ages between 17 and 30 inclusive. It covers English-domiciled first time entrants to HE courses, which are expected to last for at least six months, at UK higher education institutions and English, Scottish and Welsh further education colleges, and who remain on their course for at least six months. An 18-year-old rate can be derived from this, and the available figures are shown in Table 2:
	
		
			  Table 2: Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR) 
			  Percentage 
			   17-30 age group  18-year-olds 
			 1999/2000 39.3 19.3 
			 2000/01 39.7 19.5 
			 2001/02 40.2 19.6 
			 2002/03 41.2 19.7 
			 2003/04 40.3 19.2 
			 2004/05 41.3 19.6 
			 2005/06 42.8 21.3 
			  Source:  "Participation Rates in Higher Education: Academic Years 1999/2000 to 2005/06 (Provisional)" Statistical First Release, published by DfES. 
		
	
	Figures are not available for earlier years than 1999/2000. Figures for 2006/07 will become available in 2008. The HEIPR is not disaggregated below national level. The HEIPR does not distinguish between students who have completed A-levels as opposed to other qualifications.
	For information, the percentage of 17-year-olds achieving one or more A-level has changed over the period 1994 to 2007 as follows:
	
		
			  17-year-olds achieving one or more GCE/VCE/Applied A-levels (or equivalent( 1) ) 
			   Percentage 
			 1994 29.1 
			 1995 30.5 
			 1996 31.0 
			 1997 30.8 
			 1998 33.3 
			 1999 33.8 
			 2000 34.9 
			 2001 37.3 
			 2002 39.0 
			 2003 38.9 
			 2004 39.4 
			 2005 38.8 
			 2006 39.0 
			 2007 38.8 
			 (1 )Includes Advanced GNVQ between 1998 and 2001.   Note:  Figures relate to 17-year-olds (age at start of academic year, i.e. 31 August) in all schools and colleges.   Source:  The figures are taken from the 2006/2007 SFR, published on 9 January, and can be found at http://www. dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000769/index.shtml

Postgraduate Education: Finance

David Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills whether public funding is available for students studying for a masters in research degree who already hold a level 7 qualification.

Bill Rammell: Public funding for research degrees is distributed through the research grant we give to HEFCE which will rise by 18 per cent. in cash terms from under £1.4 billion this year to over £1.6 billion over the next three years. Funding for research has and will continue to be allocated selectively on the basis of excellence. Students already holding level 7 qualifications will as now continue to be funded for a Masters Research degree provided they are studying in a department rated 4 and above in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise.

Ambulance Services: Emergency Calls

Michael Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many emergency incidents were responded to by ambulance services in England in each year since 1997-98, broken down by NHS ambulance trust;
	(2)  how many emergency calls to ambulance services there have been in each year since 1997-98  (a) for England in total and  (b) broken down by strategic health authority area.

Ben Bradshaw: Information about the number of emergency incidents responded to by ambulance services in England are contained in the KA34 Statistical Bulletin published annually by the Information Centre. Table 4 of the bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2001-02" gives the figures from 1997-98 to 2001-02.
	Table 4 of "Ambulance Services, England 2006-07" gives the figures from 2002-03 to 2006-07. However, it should be noted that there were mergers of the majority of national health service trusts providing ambulance services in 2006, with the data in this table being split by ambulance trust configuration for comparability purposes.
	Information about the number of emergency calls for England are also contained in the KA34 Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2006-07". Data on emergency calls is collected by NHS Ambulance Trust level not by strategic health authority area.
	Copies of the bulletins are available in the Library and the bulletin for 2006-07 is available at the following website:
	www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/audits-and-performance/ambulance/ambulance-services-england-2006-07

Cancer

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to the publication of the Cancer Reform Strategy, when he plans to establish a National Cancer Intelligence Network; when he plans to evaluate the performance of such a network; and by what means.

Ann Keen: A small coordinating team is already in place, based initially at the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI). An initial meeting of the coordinating team and the major funding stakeholders took place in January 2008. A formal steering group, to oversee the development of the National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN), will be set up in the first half of 2008. Once established the NCIN will be accountable, via its steering group, to the board of the NCRI.
	As the funders of research and analytical services in the United Kingdom, the partner organisations within the NCRI board will determine priorities for routine analyses at a national level and for research.
	Good quality information and data enhances patient choice, drives up service quality and underpins stronger commissioning. The performance of the NCIN will be measured by changes to clinical outcomes and patient experience, detailed in annual reports from the NCIN.

Cancer: Finance

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to the publication of the Cancer Reform Strategy, what new funding he plans to make available for cancer services in each of the next five years.

Ann Keen: Alongside the Cancer Reform Strategy, we have published an Impact Assessment (IA) that sets out our estimated costs of implementing the strategy in each year. A copy of the IA is available in the Library. The funding to meet these expected costs is mainly being provided through primary care trusts (PCT) general allocations, with some costs met centrally. PCT allocations are not broken down into funding streams for individual services, and it is for the national health service to decide locally how best to deliver the outcomes set out in the strategy, and the actual level of resources required to do so.

Cancer: Health Services

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  pursuant to the answer of 14 January 2008,  Official Report, columns 997-8W, on cancer: health services, how many finished consultant episodes there were for  (a) all cancer treatments,  (b) radiotherapy treatment for cancer and  (c) chemotherapy treatment for cancer (i) between October 2005 and September 2006 and (ii) between October 2006 and September 2007;
	(2)  how many patients were given  (a) radiotherapy and  (b) chemotherapy treatment for cancer (i) between October 2005 and September 2006 and (ii) between October 2006 and September 2007.

Ann Keen: The Department currently only collects figures on the number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs), we do not have figures for the total number of cancer patients treated with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy.
	The following table sets out the number of FCEs for all cancer treatments and FCEs for radiotherapy and chemotherapy for cancer.
	
		
			   2005-06 (OPCS 4.2 codes)  2006-07 (OPCS 4.3 and 4.2 codes) 
			 FCEs with a primary diagnosis of cancer and neoplasms 1,520,547 1,562,085 
			 FCEs with a primary diagnosis of cancer and neoplasms, a secondary diagnosis of 'radiotherapy session' and a 'radiotherapy procedure code' 1,519 6,747 
			 FCEs with a primary diagnosis of cancer and neoplasms, a secondary diagnosis of 'chemotherapy session' and a 'chemotherapy procedure code' 372,744 378,440 
			  Notes:  FCE An FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year. Cancer treatments i.e. radiotherapy and chemotherapy could take place in other settings, for example a patient could be classed as a 'regular attender' or these treatments may occur in out-patients.  Diagnosis (Primary Diagnosis) The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002-03) diagnosis fields in the HES data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital. Primary diagnosis codes used for cancer and neoplasms: C00-D48  Secondary Diagnoses As well as the primary diagnosis, there are up to 13 (six prior to 2002-03) secondary diagnosis fields in HES that show other diagnoses relevant to the episode of care, Secondary diagnosis codes used for Radiotherapy session: Z51.0 Secondary diagnosis codes used for Chemotherapy session: Z51.1  Changes to Coding Classifications—OPCS4 Operative procedure codes were revised for 2006-07. 2006-07 data uses OPCS4.3 codes, whereas earlier data uses OPCS4.2 codes. All codes that were in OPCS4.2 remain in OPCS4.3, however the OPCS4.3 codes enable the recording of interventions and procedures which were not possible in OPCS4.2. In particular OPCS 4.3 codes additionally includes high cost drugs and diagnostic imaging, testing and rehabilitation. You may also find that some activity may have been coded under different codes in OPCS4.2. These changes need to be borne in mind when analysing time series and may explain any growth over time. More information about OPCS4 changes are available on the Connecting for Health website www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk.  Main Procedure/Intervention The main procedure/intervention is the first recorded procedure or intervention in the HES data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure or intervention performed during the episode.  Secondary Procedure As well as the main operative procedure, there are up to 11 (three prior to 2002-03) secondary operation fields in HES that show secondary or additional procedures performed on the patient during the episode of care.  Data Quality HES are compiled from data sent by over 300 national health service trusts, and primary care trusts in England. Data is also received from a number of independent sector organisations for activity commissioned by the English NHS. The Information Centre for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and invalid data via HES processes. While this brings about improvement over time, some shortcomings remain.  Ungrossed Data Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The Information Centre for health and social care

Cancer: Urinary System

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if he will provide an update on the progress made by cancer networks in implementing the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's guidance on Improving Outcomes in Urological Cancers, published in September 2002, setting out  (a) which cancer networks have agreed an action plan with the Department of Health and  (b) the expected date for full implementation in each cancer network;
	(2)  with reference to the Answer of 16 April 2007 to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge,  Official Report, column 325W, on Cancer: Urinary system, if he will place in the Library copies of the action plans submitted to his Department by strategic health authorities which demonstrate how they will implement the guidance on improving outcomes in urological cancers; which cancer networks reported at December 2006 that the guidance on Improving Outcomes in urological cancers would not be fully implemented by December 2007; what series of measures incorporated into the Manual of Cancer Services 2004 were translated from the Improving Outcomes in urological cancers guidance; and if he will make a statement.

Ann Keen: As at 31 June 2007 the following cancer networks had action plans agreed by the national health service cancer action team for implementing the urological cancers improving outcomes guidance:
	North London
	South East London
	South West London
	West London
	North East London
	Number and Yorkshire Coast
	Yorkshire
	North Trent
	Greater Manchester and Cheshire
	Lancashire and South Cumbria
	Merseyside and Cheshire
	Central South Coast
	Thames Valley
	Sussex
	Surrey, West Sussex and Hampshire
	Three Counties
	Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire
	Dorset
	Peninsula
	Mid Trent
	Derby and Burton
	Leicestershire,
	Northamptonshire and Rutland
	Arden
	Pan Birmingham
	Greater Midlands
	North of England (formerly Cancer Care Alliance and Northern)
	Anglia (formerly Norfolk and Waveney and West Anglia)
	Essex (formerly Mid Anglia and South Essex)
	Mount Vernon
	The Department does not hold a set of these local plans as they were submitted to the NHS cancer action team for approval. Copies should be available from individual cancer networks.
	The reporting system in use in December 2006 did not provide sufficient information to identify with confidence those networks that did not expect to achieve full implementation of the urological cancers guidance by December 2007. A stock take therefore took place in Spring 2007 to strengthen the information base and subsequent data collections.
	The most recent data is based on strategic health authority (SHA) June 2007 reporting plus intelligence from the NHS cancer action team. It shows that in summer 2007:
	14 networks were already reporting implementation of this guidance;
	Nine networks were reporting that they were on schedule for implementation by 31 December 2007;
	Six networks were reporting that they were not on schedule to implement the guidance by 31 December 2007 (Number and Yorkshire Coast, Yorkshire, Central South Coast, Mid Trent, Greater Midlands and Surrey, West Sussex and Hampshire)
	One network was still to submit an approved plan (Kent)
	The cancer action team continue to work closely with cancer networks on this matter. In addition, the Department's Recovery and Support Unit is liaising with SHAs where deadlines are unlikely to be met to ensure recovery plans are in place.
	SHAs have recently submitted information confirming the position for 31 December 2007. This is currently being analysed and will provide a clearer national position including the expected implementation date for any networks that had not fully implemented this guidance by the end of 2007.
	The measures included in the Manual for Cancer Services based on the urological cancers Improving Outcomes Guidance have been placed in the Library.

Childbirth

Adam Afriyie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to improve the  (a) prediction and  (b) prevention of premature births.

Ann Keen: We are funding research linked to premature births from the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. Some parts of this research, for example, big trials, have received additional funding from agencies such as the Medical Research Council. In general terms, keeping healthy and maintaining good nutrition, during pregnancy is important for the wellbeing of both the mother and baby.

Hospitals: Infectious Diseases

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims relating to healthcare associated infections the NHS Litigation Authority has dealt with in each year since 1997.

Ann Keen: Not all claims related to health care associated infection (HCAI) can be identified. The following table shows those claims where methicillin-resistant  Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and/or  Clostridium difficile ( C. difficile) are regarded as one of the injuries.
	Information on HCAI-related claims prior to 1999 is not available due to the coding systems in place at that time; which do not allow analysis for HCAIs.
	Claims data by notification year (notified to trust) for claims where MRSA and/or  C. Difficile are recorded as one of the injuries (as at 31 December 2007).
	
		
			  Number 
			  Notification year  Open claims  Claims closed with no damages  Claims settled with damages  Total claims 
			 1999-2000 0 1 1 2 
			 2000-01 0 3 0 3 
			 2001-02 0 2 8 10 
			 2002-03 3 15 24 42 
			 2003-04 4 34 28 66 
			 2004-05 10 47 15 72 
			 2005-06 35 50 12 97 
			 2006-07 90 26 12 128 
			 2007-08(1) 101 5 4 110 
			 Total 243 180 107 530 
			 (1) Denotes data to date for current period.  Source: NHS Litigation Authority.

Hospitals: Infectious Diseases

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of healthcare associated infections voluntarily reported to the Healthcare Protection Agency in each of the last five financial years for which figures are available, broken down by  (a) type of infection and  (b) trust.

Ann Keen: The following table gives data collected from the voluntary reporting system from 2002 to 2006 for the nine most common causes of bacteraemia (bacterial bloodstream infections) and for  Clostridium difficile (C. difficile), which is associated with diarrhoea and not the blood stream. These data are not available by trust or by financial year.
	These organisms are associated with infections that are transmitted mainly or partly within hospitals.
	
		
			  Organism  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006 
			  Escherichia coli 12,709 15,052 15,741 16,961 18,079 
			 Coagulase negative staphylococci 6,604 8,609 10,091 11,708 14,943 
			  Staphylococcus aureus 12,895 14,603 14,173 14,065 13,648 
			 MRSA (Percentage) 42.5 41.2 39.7 39.6 37.9 
			 Enterococcus spp 4,421 5,611 5,887 6,477 7,109 
			 Klebsiella spp 3,515 4,169 4,639 4,853 5,198 
			  Streptococcus pneumoniae 4,163 5,135 4,526 4,971 4,553 
			 Pseudomonas spp 2,382 2,969 2,897 3,069 3,477 
			 Enterobacter spp 1,874 2,256 2,284 2,314 2,418 
			 Proteus spp 1,662 1,882 1,818 1,805 1,845 
			  C. difficile 26,357 33,201 40,414 47,022 51,145 
			  Source: Healthcare Protection Agency laboratory reports (voluntary reporting system). 
		
	
	The increase in bacteraemias is partly due to better reporting, surveillance and testing and may also reflect a changing hospital population, with more patients who are vulnerable to infection through conditions which compromise their immune systems being treated.

Maternity Services

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 13 December 2007,  Official Report, column 875W, on maternity services, which trusts provided maternity services in each of the five years before 2005-06.

Ann Keen: We do not collect this information centrally. However, data for 2004-05 is in "NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 2004-05" copies of which are available in the Library. Copies of the 2002-03, 2001-02 reports are also available in the Library.

Maternity Services: Standards

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to paragraph 2.50 of the NHS in England's Operating Framework for 2008-09, how his Department defines 'sufficient numbers of maternity staff and neo-natal teams to meet local needs' in terms of  (a) the population of a primary care trust and  (b) the number of births at a maternity unit.

Ann Keen: It is for primary care trusts and national health service trusts to decide locally how to use their resources to provide services for the people for whom they are responsible, in line with the NHS Operating Framework. Staffing levels in maternity services vary throughout the country and are dependent on a range of factors including, model of care and skill mix such as the use of maternity support workers.

NHS: Public Participation

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what assessment he has made of patient and public involvement in Lord Darzi's reviews of  (a) the NHS and  (b) NHS London;
	(2)  how many requests Lord Darzi has received to meet members of the National Association of Patients' Forums; and how many times Lord Darzi has met members of the National Association of Patients' Forums in the course of his reviews of the NHS to hear their views on delivering effective patient and public involvement.

Ann Keen: The national health service "Our NHS, our future" next stage review is primarily a local process. Eight clinical pathway groups in each strategic health authority (SHA) region outside London are currently considering how to improve models of care across eight pathways from maternity and newborn care to end of life care. Local events are being held to ensure that the views and experiences of the public and patients inform the thinking of each clinical working group.
	A second nationwide day of consultative events was held on 24 January 2008 to test the emerging findings of the clinical pathway groups with around 1,000 staff, patients and the public across the regions. The findings from the consultation events will contribute to each SHA's vision for healthcare due to be published in the spring.
	An online questionnaire has also been launched to capture the views of patients and the public. This is available on the review's website at:
	www.nhs.uk/ournhs
	NHS London SHA undertook a similar process of engagement during the development of the "Healthcare for London: A Framework for Action" report. This included a telephone poll of 7,000 people, two deliberative events in February and March 2007 attended by over 100 people on each date and two feedback meetings in May and June 2007 attended more than 60 people on each date.
	Following the publication of the report, NHS London has convened a Patient and Public Advisory Group to contribute to the consultation, received over 12,000 visitors to their website, commenced a programme of 40 roadshows and met with stakeholder groups including patient and public involvement forums.
	The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Darzi of Denham) has received three representations from the National Association of Patient Forums on engaging with the NHS Next Stage Review. Since July, Lord Darzi has visited and spoken to large numbers of stakeholders, including patient groups, and members of the public about the review. Thousands of people have already contributed their views at consultative events, via letter, email and other online channels. Representatives of patient groups also attended an International Clinical Summit in November 2007 to share ideas of leading edge care from the United Kingdom and around the world.

Obesity: Surgery

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role surgery has in the treatment of severe obesity in the NHS; and what assessment he has made of the potential to increase the use of surgery in such cases.

Dawn Primarolo: Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives, the Government's strategy for promoting healthy weight, published in January 2008, reaffirmed the commitment that local health services should provide surgical interventions for obese patients where it is deemed clinically appropriate.
	The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends that surgery should only be considered in adults with severe obesity if they have a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or more or between 35 and 40 and other significant disease (for example, type two diabetes, high blood pressure), and after all appropriate non-surgical measures have failed to achieve or maintain adequate clinically beneficial weight loss, and only be considered as a last resort. Surgery can be considered as a first-line option for adults with a BMI of more than 50. NICE do not generally recommend surgery for children or young people and should only be considered in exceptional circumstances.
	Regarding the potential to increase the use of surgery to treat obesity, it is up to local areas to decide the best types of treatments, including the level of weight loss surgery, to provide for their own populations, in line with NICE guidance.

Prostate Cancer

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of prostate cancer he estimates there will be in  (a) 2011,  (b) 2016 and  (c) 2021; how many cases of prostate cancer there were in 2006; and what estimate he has made of the (i) inpatient, (ii) outpatient and (iii) other costs of treating prostate cancer in (A) 2006, (B) 2011, (C) 2016 and (D) 2021.

Ann Keen: Estimates for cases of prostate cancer in individual years are not available, but estimates for the average annual registrations over a five year period are available:
	
		
			  Time period  Number of cases 
			 2009-13 29,625 
			 2014-18 33,026 
			 2019-23 36,703 
		
	
	These estimates are projected from incidence rates from 1974-2003. Projections are not given for individual years because these would be subject to wide uncertainty.
	The number of cases of prostate cancer in 2006 is not currently known, the most recently available data is for 2005, in which there were 28,886 registrations.
	 Source: Office for National Statistics.
	The estimate of inpatient costs for prostate cancer are:
	
		
			  Time period  Average annual cost  (£ million) 
			 2009-13 67.4 
			 2014-18 74.9 
			 2019-23 82.7 
		
	
	All the cost estimates are in 2005-06 prices. The inpatient cost figures relate to admissions with a primary diagnosis of prostate cancer, and excludes chemotherapy and radiotherapy costs. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates of any other element of prostate cancer treatment costs because of the lack of appropriate data.

Prostate Cancer

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the  (a) actual and  (b) optimum workloads of sites offering prostatectomies, expressed in terms of the number of operations per site.

Ann Keen: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on "Improving Outcomes in Urological Cancers" in September 2002. It stated that:
	"ideally, all radical prostatectomies undertaken in each network should be carried out by a single team. Radical prostatectomy should not be carried out by teams which carry out fewer than 50 radical operations (prostatectomies and cystectomies) for prostate and bladder cancers per year".
	The guidance went on to recommend that
	"surgeons who currently carry out fewer than five radical prostatectomies per year should refer patients to designated surgeons who will become more specialised in this type of surgery."
	This guidance was converted into a series of measures for inclusion in the "Manual of Cancer Services 2004" against which cancer networks are peer reviewed. The Manual includes measures to assess:
	the total number of radical prostatectomies and, separately, the total number of total cystectomies, performed by the multidisciplinary teams during the year prior to the team's review; and
	the total number of radical prostatectomies and, separately, the total number of total cystectomies, performed by individual surgical members of the team.
	If teams were not compliant with the criteria set out in the improving outcomes guidance during the peer review, the peer review team would have raised this as an immediate risk with the trust chief executive or their representative on the day of the visit following up this concern in writing. A trust would be expected to address this concern as a matter of urgency.
	Individual cancer network's performance against these measures in the 2004 to 2007 round of national cancer peer review would be set out in their local peer review reports. These reports are available on the Cancer Quality Improvement Network System website at:
	www.cquins.nhs.uk/published_reviews.php
	A summary report of the 2004 to 2007 national cancer peer review process will be issued shortly.

Prostate Cancer: Staff

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 18 December 2007,  Official Report, column 1407W, on prostate cancer: staff, in what ways  (a) his Department and  (b) the Healthcare Commission monitors progress against the action plans submitted by strategic health authorities to implement the improving outcomes in urological cancers guidance; what progress has been made to date; and if he will make a statement.

Ann Keen: Strategic health authorities (SHAs) submit six monthly reports to the Department to confirm whether their cancer networks have met any improving outcomes guidance (IOGs) milestones that had been due in the preceding six month period and also to confirm if future milestones are on schedule to be met.
	The national health service cancer action team works closely with the cancer networks and the Departments Recovery and Support Unit liaises with SHAs where deadlines are unlikely to be met to ensure recovery plans are in place.
	The Healthcare Commission expects primary care trusts (PCTs) to support the development of agreed action plans within cancer networks as well as to ensure services are commissioned in line with agreed action plans to achieve full implementation of these IOGs. The Department shares information on progress with the Healthcare Commission. The Commission use this information to inform the ratings they give to individual PCTs.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Drugs

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many recorded cases of drug resistant gonorrhoea have been confirmed in each of the last five years; what steps he has taken to tackle drug resistant gonorrhoea; whether he has received representations on  (a) penicillin,  (b) tetracycline and  (c) fluoroquinolone resistant gonorrhoea; how many representations he has received on antibiotic resistance relating to the treatment of gonorrhoea; and if he will place in the Library copies of such representations.

Dawn Primarolo: The Gonococcal Resistance to Antimicrobial Surveillance Programme (GRASP) funded by the Department and run by the Health Protection Agency, monitors gonococcal antimicrobial resistance at a number of sentinel sites in England and Wales. The percentages of gonorrhoea isolates from genito-urinary medicine (GUM) clinic patients submitted to GRASP from in England and Wales between 2002 and 2006 which had confirmed resistance to penicillin, tetracycline and ciprofloxacin (a fluoroquinolone) are contained in the following table:
	
		
			  Percentage of isolates resistant to specific antimicrobials, 2002-06 
			  Percentage 
			  Antimicrobial  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006 
			 Penicillin (MIC> = l mg/l) 9.8 9.7 11.4 17.9 9.5 
			 Tetracycline (MIC> = 2 mg/l) 44.8 38.2 44.4 48 36.9 
			 Ciprofloxacin (MIC> = l mg/l) 9.8 9.1 14.0 21.7 26.5 
			  Notes: 1. MIC means minimum inhibitory concentration and is defined as the lowest concentration of an antimicrobial that will inhibit the visible growth of a micro-organism after overnight incubation. The MICs shown for the specific antimicrobials define the cut-off for resistance to these antimicrobials. 2. Due to variations in the retrieval and confirmation of isolates submitted in different years, the data on resistance prevalence are statistically weighted. This is done to avoid resistance estimates being under representative of sites that have a low retrieval rate and over representative of sites that have a high retrieval rate.  Source: GRASP from specimens collected at genito-urinary medicine clinics. 
		
	
	Data from GRASP provide the evidence-base for treatment guidelines in the management of gonorrhoea. In 2002, this led to prescribing policy being updated to recommend that gonorrhoea should be treated with third generation cephalosporins, ceftriaxone or cefixime. Further information is contained in the GRASP annual report (year 2006 collection) which has been placed in the Library. No specific representations have been received by the Department on this issue.

Tax Office: Dorchester

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the Dorchester tax office.

Jane Kennedy: No decisions have yet been taken on the future of the Dorchester Tax office HMRC will announce plans to consult on all offices that have not yet been consulted on shortly after the Budget.

Domestic Violence: Rehabilitation

Margaret Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the  (a) longest,  (b) average and  (c) shortest waiting period for domestic violence perpetrators programmes was for each probation area in the latest period for which figures are available.

Maria Eagle: The information requested is contained in the following table. It covers the period from April 2006 to March 2007.
	Offenders waiting for a place on a domestic violence programme are under the supervision of their offender manager from the day of sentence. The offender manager will monitor the risk posed by the offender and actively manage it. Additionally the offender manager will normally prepare offenders for the programmes by carrying out set work. This can take between six and 12 weeks.
	These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The data take no account of time that elapses because of the need to deliver other requirements of the sentence, or because the offender is recalled into custody, for example.
	The domestic violence programmes are still relatively new and demand from the courts has exceeded expectations. A series of measures are in place to reduce the period of time before an offender can start a programme.
	
		
			  Domestic violence programmes: time to commencements 
			  Weeks 
			  Area  Mean time to commence group  Minimum time to commence group  Maximum time to commence group 
			  England
			 Avon and Somerset 39.0 9 101 
			 Bedfordshire 20.8 4 146 
			 Cambridgeshire 36.5 7 95 
			 Cumbria 24.8 4 52 
			 Derbyshire 30.6 6 68 
			 Devon and Cornwall 41.4 7 200 
			 Dorset 31.1 4 79 
			 County Durham 25.1 1 57 
			 Essex 39.5 10 77 
			 Gloucestershire 32.3 7 91 
			 Hampshire 25.0 2 79 
			 Hertfordshire 30.0 2 57 
			 Humberside 23.0 2 47 
			 Kent 29.2 11 67 
			 Lancashire 27.9 4 208 
			 Leicestershire and Rutland 39.4 1 130 
			 Lincolnshire 24.5 7 72 
			 London 31.8 4 173 
			 Merseyside 25.7 2 86 
			 Norfolk 19.4 4 89 
			 Northamptonshire 29.3 7 85 
			 Northumbria 32.2 7 72 
			 Nottinghamshire 12.9 4 49 
			 Staffordshire 13.7 3 52 
			 Suffolk 20.2 5 80 
			 Surrey 28.1 12 59 
			 Sussex 27.4 1 74 
			 Teesside 25.2 9 43 
			 Thames Valley 36.5 8 126 
			 Warwickshire 19.9 5 60 
			 West Mercia 13.0 4 33 
			 West Midlands 28.6 5 78 
			 Wiltshire 34.9 2 103 
			 Yorkshire North 16.1 1 53 
			 Yorkshire South 42.5 1 77 
			 Yorkshire West 28.4 1 161 
			 
			  Wales
			 Dyfed-Powys 19.2 6 61 
			 Gwent 40.8 12 101 
			 North Wales 37.1 9 76 
			 South Wales 23.2 4 63 
			  Note:   Comparable data from Cheshire and Greater Manchester areas are not available due to incompatible IT systems.

Ministry of Justice

Andrew Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will give the dates of any meetings he had with  (a) the Labour Party Registered Treasurer or Representative Officer,  (b) the Conservative Party Registered Treasurer or Representative Officer or  (c) the Liberal Party Registered Treasurer or Representative Officer since December 2006, other than those which took place during meetings with Hayden Phillips.

Jack Straw: In my capacity as Secretary of State for Justice, I have not held any meetings with political party representatives since December 2006.
	In addition to the information in the answer of 7 January 2008,  Official Report, column 156W, I have met with representatives of political parties on party funding (including those of my own party), in my capacity as one of my party's representatives at the cross party talks.

Prisoner Escapes

David Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners in each contracted-out prison  (a) escaped from prison and  (b) escaped from escorts in each of the last five years.

David Hanson: Information on the number escapes from prison and escapes from escort at each contracted prison is provided in the following tables for each financial year to 31 March and for the current year until 31 January 2008.
	
		
			  Escapes from prisons 
			   2003-04  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07  2007-08 
			 Altcourse 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Ashfield 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Bronzefield(1) n/a 0 0 0 0 
			 Doncaster 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Dovegate 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Forest Bank 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Lowdham Grange 0 0 0 1 0 
			 Parc 1 0 0 0 0 
			 Peterborough(2) n/a n/a 0 0 0 
			 Rye Hill 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Wolds 0 0 0 0 0 
		
	
	In the end of year Performance Report on Offender Management Targets 2006-07 (PROMT) published in July 2007 on the NOMS website. Targets for the rate of escape from prison and prison escorts below 0.05 per cent. of the average population, was met by both the public sector and the contracted estate.
	The target for fewer than one in 20,000 escapes from prison and prison escorts was also met.
	
		
			  Escapes from prison escort 
			   2003-04  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07  2007-08 
			 Altcourse 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Ashfield 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Bronzefield(1) n/a 0 0 0 0 
			 Doncaster 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Dovegate 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Forest Bank 0 1 1 0 0 
			 Lowdham Grange 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Parc 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Peterborough(2) n/a n/a 0 0 1 
			 Rye Hill 0 1 1 0 0 
			 Wolds 0 0 0 0 0 
			 (1) HMP Bronzefield did not become operational until 4 June. (2) HMP Peterborough did not become operational until March 2005

Prisoners: Food

David Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the cost was of the daily food allowance for prisoners in each contracted-out prison in each of the last five years.

David Hanson: Information on the cost of the daily food allowance for prisoners in each of the last five years for each contracted prison is provided in the table as follows.
	
		
			  Cost of daily food allowance for prisoners 
			  £( 1) 
			   2007  2006  2005  2004  2003 
			 Altcourse 2.18 2.23 2.24 2.19 2.10 
			 Ashfield 2.81 2.84 2.63 2.63 2.63 
			 Bronzefield (2) 3.45 3.73 3.93 n/a n/a 
			 Doncaster 2.40 2.33 2.23 2.18 2.17 
			 Dovegate 2.25 2.25 2.22 2.17 2.15 
			 Forest Bank 2.91 2.93 2.93 2.85 n/a 
			 Lowdham Grange 2.25 2.25 2.22 2.17 2.15 
			 Parc(3) 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 
			 Peterborough (4) 2.95 3.18 4.42 n/a n/a 
			 Rye Hill 2.15 2.17 2.20 2.12 2.06 
			 Wolds 2.17 2.18 2.15 2.09 2.05 
			 (1) Due to information not being held centrally data has been supplied by each of the four contractors Serco, Kalyx, G4S and GSL. (2) HMP Bronzefield did not open until June 2004. (3) Information provided by Pare is the actual daily allowance per day, however the actual food cost varies over the period between £2.45 and £2.60. (4) HMP Peterborough did not open until March 2005. Data also includes providing free staff meals, as it is not possible for the contractor to provide a separated cost.

Prisoners: Skilled Workers

David Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners in each contracted-out prison started a work skills award in each of the last five years; and what percentage of these completed a work skills award.

Maria Eagle: Information on the number of completed work skill awards against the target in each contracted prison in each of the last five years is provided in the following table. Information is not centrally available for the number of prisoners who started work skill awards and can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Target and actual key work skill awards in each contracted prison( 1) 
			   2006-07  2005-06  2004-05  2003-04  2002-03 
			   Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target 
			 Altcourse 977 752 1,090 663 591 400 506 200 342 17 
			 Ashfield 5,204 630 931 630 616 500 1,689 150 — — 
			 Bronzefield(2) 1,935 800 1,177 800, 630 150 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Doncaster 961 470 1,041 440 783 320 411 240 238 241 
			 Dovegate 2,014 1,137 1,134 1,010 994 825 753 800 554 200 
			 Forest Bank 1,042 844 837 782 804 600 771 300 317 300 
			 Lowdham Grange 1,221 1,208 1,102 1,071 1,056 354 265 221 — — 
			 Parc 2,210 1,400 2,067 1,060 1,150 750 866 165 637 154 
			 Peterborough(3) 1,830 760 n/a — n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Rye Hill 334 330 354 330 408 320 229 300 144 150 
			 Wolds 674 345 386 305 642 250 164 150 231 149 
			 (1) Information has been obtained from the PSimon reporting system. Data has also been published in the Prison Service annual report, Office for Contracted Prisons Statement of Performance and the Regional Commissioning and Partnerships annual report available on the HMPS and NOMS website. (2) HMP Bronzefield did not open until June 2004. (3) HMP Peterborough did not open until March 2005. Data for 2006-07 is provided from the Commissioning and Partnerships annual report 2006-07: East of England as data is not available on PSimon. Data has been combined for the male and female prison sites.

Prisoners: Skilled Workers

David Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners in each contracted-out prison started  (a) entry level,  (b) level one and  (c) level two basic skills awards in each of the last five years; and what percentage of these completed (i) entry level, (ii) level one and (iii) level two basic skills awards.

Maria Eagle: Information on the number of completed basic skill awards against the target in each contracted prison in each of the last five years is provided in the following tables. Information is not centrally available for the number of prisoners who started basic skill awards and can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Entry level basic skill award( 1) 
			   2006-07  2005-06  2004-05  2003-04  2002-03 
			   Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target 
			 Altcourse 135 242 194 194 379 200 114 50 47 20 
			 Ashfield 326 315 282 378 313 300 0 100 n/a n/a 
			 Bronzefield(2) 113 90 106 90 22 25 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Doncaster 82 120 125 112 129 120 66 40 33 20 
			 Dovegate 345 290 291 264 191 170 185 90 62 50 
			 Forest Bank 265 220 241 215 244 210 71 40 59 40 
			 Lowdham Grange 69 95 96 95 121 66 47 40 38 40 
			 Parc 388 252 266 237 230 200 252 140 143 140 
			 Peterborough(3) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Rye Hill 85 99 104 99 136 105 26 25 2 40 
			 Wolds 216 180 190 180 212 200 210 90 183 89 
		
	
	
		
			  Level  one  basic skill award( 1) 
			   2006-07  2005-06  2004-05  2003-04  2002-03 
			   Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target 
			 Altcourse 355 181 283 148 280 138 170 110 193 26 
			 Ashfield 244 105 181 126 120 100 88 50 n/a n/a 
			 Bronzefield(2) 81 40 60 40 24 30 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Doncaster 311 220 218 206 125 120 62 40 39 26 
			 Dovegate 269 242 275 212 198 90 160 180 94 150 
			 Forest Bank 239 220 234 210 222 200 127 100 190 40 
			 Lowdham Grange 233 210 247 210 136 103 83 61 63 61 
			 Parc 410 257 269 242 210 205 166 160 203 153 
			 Peterborough(3) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Rye Hill 107 63 64 63 62 60 64 45 52 35 
			 Wolds 175 172 181 172 193 170 127 27 116 27 
		
	
	
		
			  Level  two  basic skill award( 1) 
			   2006-07  2005-06  2004-05  2003-04  2002-03 
			   Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target  Actual  Target 
			 Altcourse 270 249 199 198 204 195 144 130 183 120 
			 Ashfield 127 42 79 50 63 40 19 20 n/a n/a 
			 Bronzefield(2) 40 40 46 40 20 30 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Doncaster 232 210 207 197 170 170 140 140 129 105 
			 Dovegate 101 365 333 333 220 200 187 80 67 70 
			 Forest Bank 114 80 88 78 87 75 121 120 153 90 
			 Lowdham Grange 148 134 148 134. 64 61 37 30 43 30 
			 Parc 261 226 244 212 168 150 144 140 247 140 
			 Peterborough(3) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Rye Hill 62 77 73 77 43 50 35 45 44 35 
			 Wolds 189 120 121 120 130 100 68 67 90 66 
			 n/a = Not available. (1) Information has been obtained from the PSimon reporting system. Data has also been published in the Prison Service annual report, Office for Contracted Prisons Statement of Performance and the Regional Commissioning and Partnerships annual report available on the HMPS and NOMS website. (2) HMP Bronzefield did not open until June 2004. (3) HMP Peterborough did not open until March 2005.

Prisoners: Suicide

David Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners in each contracted-out prison  (a) committed suicide,  (b) attempted suicide and  (c) deliberately self-harmed in each of the last five years.

Maria Eagle: In response to parts  (a) and  (c) of the question, the following tables list (i) the numbers of self-inflicted deaths and (ii) the numbers of self-harm incidents, for the 11 contracted prisons in England and Wales. Regarding part  (b) of the question, attempted suicide is not recorded in prisons as it is not possible to. measure suicidal intent.
	
		
			  (i) Self-inflicted deaths( 1) 
			   2003  2004  2005  2006  2007 
			 Altcourse 2 0 4 0 0 
			 Ashfield 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Bronzefield 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Doncaster 1 0 1 1 0 
			 Dovegate 0 0 0 1 0 
			 Forest Bank 1 0 0 0 1 
			 Lowdham Grange 0 0 1 0 0 
			 Parc 0 0 0 2 0 
			 Peterborough 0 0 0 0 1 
			 Rye Hill 0 0 1 1 0 
			 Wolds 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Percentage of all self-inflicted deaths 4 0 9 7 2 
			 (1 )The Prison Service/NOMS definition of self-inflicted deaths is broader than the legal definition of suicide and includes all deaths where it appears that a prisoner has acted specifically to take their own life. This inclusive approach is used in part because inquest verdicts are often not available for some years after a death (some 20 per cent. of these deaths will not receive a suicide or open verdict at inquest). Annual numbers may change slightly from time to time as inquest verdicts and other information become available. 
		
	
	
		
			  (ii) Recorded self-harm incidents( 1) 
			   2003  2004  2005  2006  2007 
			 Altcourse 168 166 122 219 215 
			 Ashfield 286 239 172 224 142 
			 Bronzefield 0 274 831 1,165 1,743 
			 Doncaster 318 370 336 276 269 
			 Dovegate 163 100 174 210 156 
			 Forest Bank 214 257 200 333 317 
			 Lowdham Grange 4 16 19 30 42 
			 Parc 326 251 368 285 189 
			 Peterborough 0 0 973 1,329 1,245 
			 Rye Hill 46 147 198 85 86 
			 Wolds 10 6 6 16 19 
			 (1 )The Prison Service/NOMS defines self-harm as any incident where a prisoner deliberately harms themselves irrespective of method, intent or severity of any injury. The numbers of self-harm incidents reported here are based on information supplied by prisons through the Prison Service Incident Reporting System. Many self-harm incidents often involve the same individuals, and changing numbers of incidents at different prisons can reflect the movement of such prisoners. Self-harm is a high volume incident that can be subject to technical and recording problems. While the system provides a sensible indication of the scale of self-harm the numbers of incidents should not be treated as absolute.

Suicide: Internet

James Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many cases of successful prosecutions for online promotion of suicide there have been.

Maria Eagle: Data collected on prosecutions for assisting or attempting to assist suicide does not differentiate between online and off-line actions but the overall number of prosecutions for these offences is low.

Young Offender Institutions: Restraint Techniques

Rudi Vis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many times restraint has been used in young offender institutions and secure training centres in England and Wales since April 2007.

David Hanson: The following table, which is based on information supplied by the Youth Justice Board, shows the number of restraints by month in young offender institutions and secure training centres from April to December 2007. Data for January 2008 is not yet available.
	
		
			   YOI  STC 
			  2007   
			 April 273 170 
			 May 269 270 
			 June 276 276 
			 July 345 386 
			 August 306 313 
			 September 281 202 
			 October 296 242 
			 November 320 211 
			 December 267 201

Adoption

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many children aged  (a) nought to two,  (b) two to 10 and  (c) over 10-years-old were adopted in each of the last five years.

Kevin Brennan: Statistical information on the total number of adoptions in England and Wales by age of child for the years 1996 to 2006 is included in Table 2a of the document "Adoptions 2006", published by the Office for National Statistics. A copy of this publication is available in the House Library and on the National Statistics website at:
	http://www. statistics. gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=15049.
	Data on the number of children adopted cannot be produced for the age groups requested by the hon. Member.

Children in Care: Housing

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families 
	(1)  what the average cost of housing a looked after child in an independent children's home is in 2007-08;
	(2)  how many looked after children are housed in  (a) a local authority and  (b) independent children's home;
	(3)  how many children have been placed for adoption with an extended family member in each of the last five years;
	(4)  how many children were adopted in each local authority in each of the last five years;
	(5)  how many adoption placements were made with extended family members in each of the last five years;
	(6)  how many children born to children in care were  (a) taken into care and  (b) adopted in each of the last five years;
	(7)  how many children in care were born to mothers aged under 16 years, broken down by age of mother, in the last 12 months;
	(8)  how many children have been  (a) in foster placements and  (b) in children's homes for over a year, broken down by age of child.

Kevin Brennan: The information is as follows:
	 PQ 186700
	Information on the average annual cost of housing a looked-after child in an independent children's home is not collected centrally by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF).
	 PQ 186701
	Information on the number of children looked after that are housed in  (a) a local authority and  (b) independent children's homes is not collected centrally by the DCSF.
	 PQ 186702
	Information on the number of children who have been placed for adoption with an extended family member in each of the last five years is not collected centrally by the DCSF. However, table A3 of the Statistical First Release (SFR 27/2007) entitled 'Children looked after in England (including adoption and care leavers) year ending 31 March 2007' shows the number of children looked after by English local authorities (LAs), who were placed for adoption at 31 March for each year from 2003 to 2007. The SFR is located at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000741/index.shtml and table A3 can be found within the first set of excel tables on the website.
	 PQ 186749
	Information on the number of children who were adopted in each LA in each of the last five years is not collected centrally by the DCSF. However, the number of children looked after by English LAs, who were adopted in each LA in each of the years ending 31 March 2003 to 2007 can be found in table LAE1 at the same aforementioned link. Table LAE1 can be found within the third set of excel tables on the website.
	 PQ 186752
	Information on the number of adoption placements that were made with extended family members in each of the last five years is not collected centrally by the DCSF. Please see the first aforementioned paragraph answering PQ 186702 for the most readily available data.
	 PQ 186808
	Information on the number of children born to children in care who were  (a) taken into care and  (b) adopted in each of the last five years is not collected centrally by the DCSF.
	 PQ 186809
	Information on the number of children in care that were born to mothers aged under 16 years, is not collected centrally by the DCSF.
	 PQ 186810
	Information on the number of children looked after in English LAs who have been  (a) in the same foster placement and  (b) in the same children's home for over a year, broken down by age at 31 March 2007 is shown in tables 1 and 2, as follows:
	
		
			  Table 1: Children looked after for over one year in the same foster placement at 31 March 2007( 1, 2, 3) , England 
			   Number 
			 All children looked after for over one year  in the same foster placement at 31 March 2007(1, 2) 23,900 
			   
			 Age at 31 March 2007 (years) 23,900 
			 1 630 
			 2 530 
			 3 570 
			 4 610 
			 5 670 
			 6 790 
			 7 920 
			 8 1,100 
			 9 1,300 
			 10 1,600 
			 11 1,800 
			 12 2,100 
			 13 2,100 
			 14 2,300 
			 15 2,200 
			 16 2,400 
			 17 2,100 
			 18 — 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2 : Children looked after for over one y ear in the same children's home  at 31 March 2007( 1, 2, 3) , England 
			   Number 
			 All children looked after for over one year  in the same children's home at 31 March 2007(1, 2) 2,100 
			   
			 Age at 31 March 2007 (years) 2,100 
			 1 0 
			 2 0 
			 3 — 
			 4 0 
			 5 — 
			 6 — 
			 7 — 
			 8 10 
			 9 20 
			 10 70 
			 11 80 
			 12 140 
			 13 190 
			 14 280 
			 15 430 
			 16 500 
			 17 340 
			 18 10 
			 19 — 
			 (1) Source: SSDA903 return on children looked after. (2) Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short-term placements. (3) To ensure that no individual can be identified from statistical tables, we use conventions for the rounding and suppression of very small numbers. All numbers which appear in national tables have been rounded to the nearest 100 if they exceed 1,000 and to the nearest 10 otherwise. Numbers from 1 to 5 inclusive have been suppressed, being replaced in the table by a long dash '—'. It has been necessary to suppress other figures whenever it would be possible to calculate the value of a suppressed number by a means of simple arithmetic. The rule applied in these circumstances has been to suppress the next smallest data item provided its value is strictly less than 20.

Children: Databases

Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families when the ContactPoint database will be operational; whose details will be included on it; who will have access to it; how much it will cost to establish and maintain; and if he will make a statement.

Kevin Brennan: ContactPoint is a key element of the Every Child Matters programme to transform children's services by supporting more effective prevention and early intervention. Its goal is to improve outcomes and the experience of public services for all children, young people and families. It will provide a quick way for practitioners to find out who else is working with the same child or young person.
	ContactPoint will be deployed to the 'Early Adopter' local authorities and two of our seven national partners in October 2008. It will be deployed to all other local authorities and national partners by May 2009.
	The information that must or may be included on ContactPoint is set out in the Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) Regulations 2007 made under section 12 of the Children Act 2004.
	ContactPoint will contain records for all children and young people in England who are under the age of 18. To help support the transition to adult services, there is provision for records of young people leaving care or with learning disabilities—to remain on ContactPoint up to the age of 25 but only with their consent.
	Access to ContactPoint will be limited strictly to those who need it to do their job (currently estimated at around 330,000 practitioners). Before being granted access, users must complete mandatory face-to-face training, have obtained security clearance (including enhanced Criminal Records Bureau clearance) and have a user name, a password, a PIN and a security token to control their access to ContactPoint.
	When accessing a child's record, all users will have to state a clear reason why they are accessing ContactPoint. All use of the system will be monitored and audited and every access to a child's record will be detailed in the ContactPoint audit trail. This will be regularly monitored by local authorities, using on-line user activity reports, to ensure that any misuse is detected and that appropriate action is taken.
	One-off implementation costs will total £224 million. Operating costs will be £41 million per year, most of which will pay for the additional staff needed to ensure the on-going security, accuracy and audit of ContactPoint.

Departmental NDPBs

Theresa May: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what the  (a) budget and  (b) remit is of each non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department; who the chairman is of each; and to what salary, including bonuses and expenses, each chairman is entitled.

Kevin Brennan: The Department is responsible for eight Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and three Advisory NDPBs. Details of the budget and remit of each NDPB, the name of the chairman and their remuneration is published in the Department's Annual Report 2007 and in Public Bodies 2007, which are available on my Department's website at:
	http://www.dcsf.gov uk/aboutus/reports/pdfs/deptreport2007. pdf
	and
	http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ndpb/
	The following NDPBs are the responsibility of the Department for Children, Schools and Families:
	British Educational Communications and Technology Agency;
	Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service;
	Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy;
	National College for School Leadership;
	Office of the Children's Commissioner;
	Partnerships for Schools;
	Qualifications and Curriculum Authority;
	School Food Trust;
	School Teachers Review Body;
	Teachers' TV Board of Governors;
	Training and Development Agency for Schools.

Departmental Publicity

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many full-time equivalent staff are responsible for brand management and marketing in his Department and its agencies.

Kevin Brennan: The Department currently has one full time corporate brand and publications manager, and 16.7 full-time equivalent staff working across a wide range of marketing functions. Information about staffing in arms length bodies is not held centrally.

Overseas Students

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will list in tabular form by each UK university the proportion of post-graduate students who are from  (a) the UK,  (b) the EEA and  (c) the rest of the world; and what assessment he has made of trends in such figures over the last 10 years.

Bill Rammell: holding answer 13 November 2007
	 I have been asked to reply.
	The available information is given in the table. Figures for 2006/07 will be available in January 2008.
	Over the last 10 years, there has been significant growth in the overall number of students from all domiciles undertaking post-graduate studies in the UK. The trend has been for the proportion of post-graduate students from overseas to increase in relation to UK domiciled students. There has been a smaller increase in the proportion of post- graduate students from the European economic area (EEA).
	
		
			  Postgraduate  e nrolments at UK higher education institutions, by domicile( 1) , 2005/06 
			Percentage 
			  Higher education institution  Total  UK  EEA( 2)  (excluding the UK)  Other overseas 
			  English Institutions 454,435 68.4 9.0 22.7 
			 Anglia Ruskin University 3,930 80.3 7.5 12.2 
			 Aston University 2,410 55.6 11.9 32.5 
			 Bath Spa University 2,300 97.7 1.2 1.2 
			 Birkbeck College 3,540 87.0 5.0 8.0 
			 Birmingham College of Food, Tourism and Creative Studies 440 19.4 11.9 68.7 
			 Bishop Grosseteste College 515 99.4 0.6 0.0 
			 Bournemouth University 2,575 45.5 10.9 43.6 
			 Brunel University 5,000 51.9 17.8 30.3 
			 Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College 565 78.9 3.9 17.2 
			 Canterbury Christ Church University 3,210 93.7 2.2 4.1 
			 Central School of Speech and Drama 370 78.5 8.1 13.4 
			 City University 9,260 61.0 15.1 23.9 
			 College of St. Mark and St. John 1,570 95.7 1.6 2.7 
			 Conservatoire for Dance and Drama 50 64.0 22.0 14.0 
			 Courtauld Institute of Art 255 53.5 15.6 30.9 
			 Coventry University 2,835 58.2 11.2 30.6 
			 Cranfield University 4,075 56.0 24.7 19.3 
			 Cumbria Institute of the Arts 40 100.0 0.0 0.0 
			 Dartington College of Arts 100 73.3 11.9 14.9 
			 De Montfort University 3,670 81.5 5.1 13.4 
			 Edge Hill University 4,785 98.7 1.0 0.3 
			 Goldsmiths College 2,585 72.1 12.5 15.4 
			 Harper Adams University College 95 69.1 8.2 22.7 
			 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine 4,570 55.7 19.8 24.5 
			 Institute of Education 7,000 84.2 5.2 10.6 
			 King's College London 7,005 69.6 12.6 17.9 
			 Kingston University 4,670 75.3 7.1 17.7 
			 Leeds College of Music 10 90.0 10.0 0.0 
			 Leeds Metropolitan University 4,330 78.3 4.8 16.9 
			 Liverpool Hope University 1,990 70.3 7.7 22.1 
			 Liverpool John Moores University 4,180 77.4 5.8 16.8 
			 London Business School 1,455 34.3 18.1 47.6 
			 London Metropolitan University 7,235 59.9 11.4 28.7 
			 London School of Economics and Political Science 4,950 22.3 26.8 50.8 
			 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine 975 44.4 14.7 41.0 
			 London South Bank University 5,205 73.0 6.4 20.7 
			 Loughborough University 5,715 55.6 8.2 36.2 
			 Middlesex University 5,545 56.1 6.5 37.4 
			 Newman College of Higher Education 365 95.1 4.9 0.0 
			 Norwich School of Art and Design 95 95.9 3.1 1.0 
			 Oxford Brookes University 5,015 74.0 6.9 19.2 
			 Queen Mary and Westfield College 3,055 51.0 13.3 35.7 
			 Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication 35 35.1 10.8 54.1 
			 Roehampton University 1,725 75.9 10.7 13.3 
			 Rose Bruford College 55 64.2 13.2 22.6 
			 Royal Academy of Music 420 52.3 19.1 28.6 
			 Royal Agricultural College 255 65.6 3.1 31.3 
			 Royal College of Art 850 59.9 25.0 15.1 
			 Royal College of Music 265 47.2 25.7 27.2 
			 Royal Holloway and Bedford New College 2,135 62.1 11.4 26.5 
			 Royal Northern College of Music 210 49.0 16.7 34.3 
			 Sheffield Hallam University 7,105 76.2 5.1 18.7 
			 Southampton Solent University 755 68.2 5.3 26.5 
			 St. George's Hospital Medical School 565 86.4 4.8 8.8 
			 St. Martin's College 3,270 96.1 3.0 0.9 
			 St. Mary's College 840 84.5 13.0 2.5 
			 Staffordshire University 3,370 64.7 5.3 30.0 
			 Thames Valley University 1,990 83.8 2.9 13.4 
			 The Arts Institute at Bournemouth 25 100.0 0.0 0.0 
			 The Institute of Cancer Research 235 64.8 15.0 20.2 
			 The Manchester Metropolitan University 5,995 87.1 4.2 8.7 
			 The Nottingham Trent University 5,895 84.0 4.4 11.6 
			 The Open University 17,465 99.7 0.0 0.3 
			 The Royal College of Nursing 185 97.8 0.5 1.6 
			 The Royal Veterinary College 395 67.5 16.1 16.4 
			 The School of Oriental and African Studies 2,095 44.8 18.1 37.1 
			 The School of Pharmacy 625 79.4 7.5 13.1 
			 The University College for the Creative Arts at Canterbury 220 53.2 18.0 28.8 
			 The University of Bath 5,025 56.7 13.1 30.2 
			 The University of Birmingham 11,960 66.7 7.5 25.8 
			 The University of Bolton 1,695 80.4 2.2 17.4 
			 The University of Bradford 4,135 47.0 9.8 43.1 
			 The University of Brighton 4,450 77.6 9.6 12.8 
			 The University of Bristol 7,785 67.5 9.6 23.0 
			 The University of Buckingham 195 33.3 8.7 57.9 
			 The University of Cambridge 9,170 58.7 12.9 28.4 
			 The University of Central Lancashire 4,175 77.5 4.4 18.1 
			 The University of Chichester 1,615 92.4 5.5 2.1 
			 The University of East Anglia 3,620 66.9 8.4 24.7 
			 The University of East London 5,195 73.2 7.0 19.8 
			 The University of Essex 2,900 38.9 19.8 41.3 
			 The University of Exeter 4,620 61.7 10.7 27.6 
			 The University of Greenwich 6,700 68.5 4.8 26.6 
			 The University of Huddersfield 3,555 82.7 3.5 13.8 
			 The University of Hull 4,125 61.6 8.1 30.2 
			 The University of Keele 3,260 72.9 6.1 21.0 
			 The University of Kent 4,525 74.8 8.8 16.4 
			 The University of Lancaster 3,610 64.2 11.4 24.4 
			 The University of Leeds 8,900 60.7 8.3 31.0 
			 The University of Leicester 6,495 67.2 6.2 26.5 
			 The University of Lincoln 1,565 77.3 7.3 15.3 
			 The University of Liverpool 3,700 63.7 8.1 28.2 
			 The University of Manchester 11,075 64.2 9.4 26.4 
			 The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne 5,410 53.4 11.0 35.6 
			 The University of Northampton 1,455 75.3 1.6 23.1 
			 The University of Northumbria at Newcastle 5,635 66.1 4.6 29.3 
			 The University of Nottingham 7,945 56.4 10.0 33.6 
			 The University of Oxford 7,970 44.0 15.6 40.4 
			 The University of Plymouth 5,415 88.3 4.7 7.0 
			 The University of Portsmouth 4,095 64.1 12.2 23.6 
			 The University of Reading 4,025 66.6 11.3 22.1 
			 The University of Salford 4,035 70.0 7.0 23.0 
			 The University of Sheffield 7,300 60.2 8.6 31.2 
			 The University of Southampton 7,145 64.7 11.4 23.8 
			 The University of Sunderland 3,035 57.7 10.1 32.2 
			 The University of Surrey 6,225 52.5 16.8 30.8 
			 The University of Sussex 3,300 61.5 13.3 25.2 
			 The University of Teesside 2,325 85.6 5.2 9.2 
			 The University of Warwick 10,050 56.5 12.7 30.8 
			 The University of Westminster 7,355 63.1 11.3 25.5 
			 The University of Winchester 1,240 97.3 1.5 1.3 
			 The University of Wolverhampton 4,310 74.6 3.7 21.6 
			 The University of Worcester 1,440 96.3 1.3 2.4 
			 The University of York 4,195 56.3 12.2 31.5 
			 Trinity and All Saints College 350 93.1 3.2 3.7 
			 Trinity Laban 245 64.5 19.6 15.9 
			 University College Falmouth 205 86.5 6.3 7.2 
			 University College London 9,650 58.8 16.2 25.0 
			 University of Bedfordshire 1,735 42.7 10.2 47.0 
			 University of Central England in Birmingham 4,090 84.5 2.7 12.8 
			 University of Chester 2,845 93.3 3.4 3.3 
			 University of Derby 2,515 88.1 3.8 8.1 
			 University of Durham 5,295 64.2 8.2 27.6 
			 University of Gloucestershire 1,680 88.6 3.3 8.1 
			 University of Hertfordshire 4,340 63.9 3.8 32.3 
			 University of London (Institutes and activities) 350 56.0 17.5 26.4 
			 University of the Arts, London 2,250 59.2 15.4 25.4 
			 University of the West of England, Bristol 5,475 85.2 4.9 9.9 
			 Wimbledon School of Art 85 82.1 8.3 9.5 
			 York St John University College 830 97.3 0.7 1.9 
			  
			  Welsh Institutions 25,275 70.5 7.7 21.8 
			 Cardiff University 7,450 65.0 8.9 26.2 
			 Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama 125 79.0 8.9 12.1 
			 Swansea Institute of Higher Education 1,185 93.6 4.5 1.9 
			 The North-East Wales Institute of Higher Education 435 74.7 7.1 18.2 
			 The University of Wales, Lampeter 1,695 61.0 12.9 26.1 
			 The University of Wales, Newport 1,850 89.0 1.8 9.1 
			 Trinity College, Carmarthen 410 96.8 1.2 2.0 
			 University of Glamorgan 2,925 71.5 6.8 21.7 
			 University of Wales Institute, Cardiff 2,330 60.9 2.6 36.5 
			 University of Wales, Aberystwyth 2,570 67.1 13.7 19.2 
			 University of Wales, Bangor 1,835 78.7 8.4 12.9 
			 University of Wales, Swansea 2,470 68.8 6.8 24.4 
			  
			  Scottish Institutions 53,985 67.5 8.7 23.8 
			 Bell College 150 100.0 0.0 0.0 
			 Edinburgh College of Art 365 43.3 19.5 37.3 
			 Glasgow Caledonian University 3,375 77.8 5.6 16.6 
			 Glasgow School of Art 260 61.4 15.8 22.8 
			 Heriot-Watt University 4,620 58.4 13.3 28.3 
			 Napier University 3,165 66.7 8.9 24.4 
			 Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh 1,100 74.5 11.8 13.7 
			 Scottish Agricultural College 75 79.2 14.3 6.5 
			 The Robert Gordon University 3,975 53.4 7.4 39.2 
			 The Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama 120 58.2 19.7 22.1 
			 The University of Aberdeen 3,660 67.7 8.3 23.9 
			 The University of Dundee 5,535 67.1 6.4 26.5 
			 The University of Edinburgh 6,585 63.4 13.0 23.6 
			 The University of Glasgow 4,785 70.3 8.0 21.7 
			 The University of Paisley 1,635 78.7 6.8 14.5 
			 The University of St Andrews 1,885 44.8 14.8 40.4 
			 The University of Stirling 2,030 66.1 7.3 26.6 
			 The University of Strathclyde 9,765 79.5 5.6 14.9 
			 UHI Millennium Institute 275 94.1 1.8 4.0 
			 University of Abertay Dundee 635 37.9 7.7 54.4 
			  
			  Northern Irish Institutions 11,670 75.1 16.2 8.7 
			 St. Mary's University College 120 97.5 2.5 0.0 
			 Stranmillis University College 160 96.8 3.2 0.0 
			 The Queen's University of Belfast 5,395 76.3 12.2 11.6 
			 University of Ulster 5,995 73.1 20.4 6.5 
			 (1) Domicile is the student's permanent residence prior to starting his or her course. (2) European Economic Area. Figures include Switzerland.  Note: Figures are on a standard registration population basis. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5, percentages to the nearest 0.1 per cent.  Source:  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) student record

Primary Education: Pupil Exclusions

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what information his Department has collected on the number of fixed period exclusions from primary schools in 2005-06; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

Kevin Brennan: Prior to 2005-06 information on fixed period exclusions was collected via the Termly Exclusions Survey. For the 2005-06 academic year the collection of fixed period exclusions data was transferred to he School Census, which is collected termly and the Termly Exclusions Survey discontinued. For the 2005-6 academic year the new termly School Census was completed by secondary schools only. This does present a gap in the information collected from primary schools on fixed period exclusions. For the 2006-7 academic year primary schools will make School Census returns termly and information on fixed period exclusions will be available.
	Information published as SFR 21/07, Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England 2005-6, has been placed in the Library.

Primary Education: Truancy

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what proportion of primary school pupils took unauthorised absence in primary schools with  (a) fewer than and  (b) more than 100 pupils in the latest period for which figures are available.

Kevin Brennan: The latest available absence rates relate to autumn term 2006 and spring term 2007 and are shown in the table:
	
		
			  Maintained primary schools( 1) , pupil absence by number of enrolments: autumn term 2006 and spring term 2007 
			Percentage of half days missed( 2) 
			   Number of pupil enrolments( 3)   Authorised absence  Unauthorised absence  Overall absence 
			 Schools with less than 100 pupil enrolments(2) 230,420 4.70 0.31 5.01 
			 Schools with 100 or more pupil enrolments(2) 3,197,960 4.74 0.54 5.27 
			 All primary schools 3,428,390 4.73 0.52 5.26 
			 (1) Includes middle schools as deemed.() (2) The number of sessions missed due to authorised/unauthorised/overall absence expressed as a percentage of the total. (3 )Number of pupil enrolments in primary schools between 1 September 2006 and 9 April 2007. Includes pupils on the school roll for at least one session who are aged between 5 and 15, excluding boarders. Some pupils may be counted more than once if they moved schools during the school year or are registered in more than one school.  Source:  School Census

Schools: Procurement

Richard Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many invoices have been unsuccessfully submitted by schools under the electronic invoice system Online Procurement for Educational Needs.

Kevin Brennan: OPEN—the Online Procurement for Educational Needs system is the Department's e-procurement tool for schools that has been developed with and for schools to aid them in procuring their goods and services in one convenient location should they wish to use it.
	Schools do not submit invoices to OPEN, only fully authorised orders. Suppliers then receive the order via the supplier portal component of OPEN and can then raise an electronic invoice.
	These invoices are currently sent to schools via email, the option to import these invoices directly to the schools' financial management system is currently unavailable as part of the pathfinder phase, but the Department is in discussion with FMS providers regarding the integration of OPEN into future releases.
	Currently, in order to ascertain the number of orders unsuccessfully raised by schools, every school registered on OPEN would need to be contacted with a list of orders they had raised through OPEN, asked to provide the invoice numbers relating to those orders and then have these queried against the supplier portal (the area where suppliers transact with schools) to establish which had been created electronically.
	At this time, and with existing functionality, to capture information to this detail would be an unnecessary burden to schools in administrative time required to ensure that the data and cross checking is complete. Furthermore, this is not something that the pathfinder phase of OPEN intended to assess. However, EPC has been working with FMS providers regarding subsequent releases of their systems to facilitate upgrades that will allow a full audit trail for invoices.

Young People

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many staff aged between 16 and 18 were employed by his Department and its predecessor  (a) directly and  (b) through an employment agency in each of the last 10 years; what proportion of these were given time off work to undertake some form of training; and what proportion were provided with some form of training (i) wholly and (ii) partially funded by his Department.

Kevin Brennan: The Department was established in June 2007. Information is available on 16 to 18-year-olds employed directly by its predecessor DfES from 2004 to 2006 and for DCSF in 2007.
	
		
			   Number of 16 to 18-years-olds employed 
			 2004 1 
			 2005 1 
			 2006 0 
			 2007 (current DCSF position) 1 
		
	
	Direct appointments prior to 2004 were not recorded in the same way and figures can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
	Age related information on temporary workers engaged by DCSF and DfES is not collected and so to isolate the number of 16 to 18 years engaged would incur disproportionate cost.
	Information on training undertaken by individuals in specified age groups is not recorded and so could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Youth Opportunity Fund

Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Youth Opportunity Fund and Youth Capital Fund, with particular reference to hard-to-reach and disadvantaged children and young people who are not involved in formal organisations.

Beverley Hughes: The Youth Opportunity and Capital Funds (YOF and YCF) were established in April 2006 as complementary, universal, funds operating under a single management framework. The funds demonstrate how innovative and creative young people can be when they are truly empowered, delivering a wide range of high quality projects and activities.
	Interim findings from the independent evaluation of the funds were published in July 2007: Research report number DCSF-RR004 is available on the DCSF's website. The research found that the funds were meeting their objective to give young people a voice through consultation and control over resources. Local authorities had involved young people in the design and development of the funds, with young people involved as decision-makers.
	Overall, around 570,000 young people have benefited directly from the funds. In addition, management information shows that over a third of the young people involved as decision makers or project leaders were from traditionally disadvantaged groups. The guidance for the funds is clear that particular care should be taken to encourage those groups who face barriers to participation. This includes young people from low income families, young disabled people, young care leavers, looked after young people, young offenders, young carers, young refugees, young lesbians and gay men, young black and minority ethnic people, travellers and those in rural areas.
	On the basis of this evidence it was agreed in comprehensive spending review 2007 that the funds should continue until at least 2011, at the current rates of funding with an additional £25 million of new investment being made available in the most disadvantaged communities.